In pictures - Nikon's large and pricey AF-S 58mm F1.4G

The AF-S Nikkor 58mm f/1.4G: a distinctly premium lens

The 58mm F1.4 is not designed as a mass market product. It's aimed at professionals and discerning amateurs, quite likely shooting with a full frame SLR like the 36MP D800 or the new 24MP D610. Users of DX format SLRs should find it works well as short telephoto 'portrait' lens.

[Note that these images were taken at a press event, where we didn't have control over the lighting - hence the magenta and green cast you'll see in some of these shots]

Very excited about this lens. For those who don't get it, I can't help them, they don't shoot material that needs it. But the samples I've seen suggest that this is the first lens I've seen for D800 that actually looks like an MF shot. And that makes it cheap in comparison to MF.

Well done to Nikon for adding yet another item for me to LUST after. Of course glass like this is meant only for 1: BRAG value. 2: The few photographers who will make full use of it (few - many others will buy but never unbox) this comes close on the heels of my other LUST LENS the new ZEISS. Actually it would make much more sense for me (as I'm primary a Canon user) for Canon to update their 50 1.4 with better glass and IS (YES PLEASE ! ) and it should sell for far far less than the new Nikkor or ZEISS. Of course if Canon really do want to follow with a BRAG lens what about a new improved 50 1.2 L with FASTER AF and IS ? Now that would turn a few heads my friends.....

The only aspect in which 58 mm is closer to 'normal' is that it is the focal length for which it is the easiest to design a lens on a Nikon F-mount in front of a FF sensor. The reason the Noct was 58 mm was that it was easier to design a high quality lens at 58 mm than at 50 mm.

Conventionally, a 'normal' lens is considered to have a focal length equal to the sensor diagonal - for full frame, that's actually 43mm. So 58mm is obviously further from this than 50mm.Of course, every photographer has their own preference - there's nothing inherently 'right' about choosing 43mm, 50mm, or 58mm.

there are several boundaries around the term "normal lens"one important factor is lens design & manufacturing level (wide angles used to be very difficult to make before and it still costs more and performs worse for focal-length < back-focus-distance, among other reasons).

so I agree with noirdesir that a "normal lens" may be better expressed as one of "best cost performance" and this is a major motivation behind "normal premium f/1.4" ... profit.

I have a zeiss 50mm makro that has this same super sunken front element. The focusing ring on the zeiss turns somewhere in the region of 300 degrees (guestimation) from start to finish allowing for more accurate manual focussing. ..Going on the look of this lens, maybe it also has that focusing capability, hence the sunken front element.

I like the sunk front element, same design as the 50mm f/1.4G, allows me to use it without a filter, and even without a lens hood in some cases (although the larger element here would be more likely to catch flare). Then again, with a $1,700 lens, I'm not sure I'd have the confidence to leave a filter off.

So just to be clear, the size of the lens is dictated purely by ergos right? The front element of the lens looks like it's halfway down the length of the lens. The optical formula would probably be achievable in half the size, but they wanted a beefy MF ring and useful distance scale window.

(Don't take this as a flame. I'm just interested in design considerations and trade-offs).

If Nikon wanted to make this new lens in the tradition of the retired Nikon 58mm "Noct" lens, as its press release states, then it should have made it an f/1.2 lens. To charge almost $1,700 for a 58mm f/1.4 lens when you can buy a Nikon 50mm f/1.4 lens for $439.00 is a joke! This new $1,700 lens will certainly separate the rational photographers from the fools and obessed collectors.

Well, the Nikon 1.4/58 has 9 elements (2 asph), the Zeiss 1.4/55 has 12 elements (1 asph, 6 ED). The published ZEISS optical MTF figures quote MTF for 40 lp/mm to stay at or above 50% across the entire image field and for *ALL* apertures (before diffraction hits), right into the corners. That's quite stunning and probably not matched by the Nikon.

OTOH, the Nikon has AF, is cheaper and may still be good enough to bring true medium format quality to the D800E. Will be interesting to watch :)

UPDATE:

Looked up MTF figures on Nikon USA website: I was correct, it cannot compete with the ZEISS. Nikon publishes MTF at less challenging 30 lp/mm to be down to 25% in the corners. So wide open, the Zeiss seems to be *much* better in the corners.

The main difference is: the Nikon still is a rather traditional symmetrical design while the ZEISS is a rather challenging retrofocus design.

When I shoot in very low light I find it almost impossible to manual focus a fast prime correctly. I have started photography way before the AF times, the concept of manual focusing isn't unfamiliar to me :) But when it comes to shooting in low light, accurate focus at f/1.4 is a hit an miss. Having AF makes an immense difference. You have to keep in mind, and I'm talking about real world shooting here, that the Zeiss can only outperform other lenses when you nail focus. Just a tad off and your $4000 advantage is out of the window. For the kind of work I do, AF is a key factor. That's why for me the Nikon wins. Others have different priorities and shoot other subjects.

May I point out that everyone has missed the boat here. Yes, it works with FF but on an APS-C crop sensor it's coming in at 87mm equivalent... a perfect portrait lens. Also, with coma correction and a 9-bladed aperture it pretty much makes perfect sense in that scenario. Until now, Nikon hasn't had a good answer for portrait on crop sensors.

@clueless - It would cost me about $15k to switch to FX, and it would take a hand truck to carry the gear. Sorry, I like my compact and lightweight system, and this lens will be great for it. I do wish they would bring out a couple of wide primes though - that monster 24mm makes no sense on DX.

I have three DX lenses: 12-24, 17-55 and 16-85. Replacing those plus the camera is about half the total, and I don't have an action camera unless I spend a lot more. It's the FX lenses I'd have to replace that will cost the other 2/3. 300 f/4 to 500 f/4, $8,400. 85 1.8 to 135 1.8, $1300. 50 f/1.4 to 85 f/1.4, $1600. 60 f/2.8 to 105 f/2.8, $900. The weight is more than double on all but the 17-55 replacement. My tripod and ball head would also require a major upgrade.

sure, this will be a special lens and I would not be surprised if it will perform better then the recently announced 4k Zeiss. Heck, of course it will perform better, much better in fact, it has AF!!!! But people, when where you out shooting last, longing for a 58mm or 55mm lens? I thought so.Now if this were a 50mm 1.2, I would be standing in line to get one. Don't be fooled and think 55/58mm is close enough to the FOV of a 50mm, it is not.

That is why I prefer 58 - for its narrower DOF, compare to 50. And yes, Zeiss will be better wide open, color/contrast - out of questions. You get what you pay for. Nikkor will be close to the King as much as possible, in quality, but for the less money. And yes, again, AF is making it all for me, personally. I've no choice, simply like this.

Personally, I usually Shoot an 85 1.4 on one body and a 35 1.4 on the other. I'd happily drop the 85 for this Focal Length - it could easily be a replacement for the way I shoot. It could even be more versatile in some situations.Thanks for your concern, but I'm not 'fooled' into thinking anything other than a 58mm lens is a 58mm FOV.

If I need a 50mm I've got a 1.8 D somewhere - it's an awesome every day lens, but other than that the 35mm takes over the walk around duties.

And I'm more than glad that this was never going to be a 1.2 lens. [Conjecture]: More expense, more weight, less DOF, less IQ, more aberrations. No thanks.

I know people that W**k on about the Canon 1.2 but in reality it's a pig to nail focus on real people in real situations. I'd rather have a 1.4 or even a 1.8 in focus than another file for the trash bin.

So before you presume that Nikon fluffed an opportunity to make a lens that fits your ideal of the right sounding statistics on a more expensive and exclusive lens, spare a thought for the more grounded of us who actually want the best lens for the job.

If this lens is anywhere close to being as refined as the original Noct Lens, with AF, it's likely going to be the one to beat for some time to come. To me, it's been a long time coming, and 58mm works.

If, however, you just want 50 1.2 (why?) then just get a Mk3 and stick a Canon on it.Capiche?

It's built just like Nikon's other recent primes, such as the 50/1.4. AF speed seemed fine, not blisteringly quick but not horribly slow either. Difficult to get a meaningful feel for this in a few minutes at a press event, though.

This is supposed to be better than the classic "noct", a lens that sells in the $3500 used range. Dreamy bokeh and resolution to make D800 happy. Sounds worth the money if so. I am glad Nikkor/Nikon shows off in this way. This is going to be a winner.

What doesn't look good is commenting on posts without reading them first; they clearly stated that these pictures were taken at a press-event. So obvioulsy many people handled these lenses and they got dirty and dust on them. The 'specs' you see in image 3 are actually light point reflections in the glass. Well done for not paying attention to anything and jumping to conclusions. Canon will send you a t-shirt.

@pixelmover Yes, I read that. And yes, obviously some are light reflections. But some of those look like they are 'inside' of the glass. Forgive me, I didn't realize that dust specs could get inside of a lens due to it being at a press conference.

If those were the pics of a lens on eBay, would you buy that lens?. I bet you wouldn't..

@moizes2 it was just an observation, not trying to rain on your Nikon parade. I like the lens. If I shot Nikon, I'd get it.

This is a brilliant idea if the lens is super. Awfully fun to see it compared (or just as well, comparably tested so that we can make up our comparison), as others mention, with the new Zeiss 55/1.8, the Otus Zeiss 50/1.4, the best Leica 50's, the venerable Canon 50/1.4 and the Nikon 50/1.4 G, the Zeiss 50/2 macro and the old Zeiss 50/1.4, Sigma 50/1.4, Sony or Minolta AF 50/1.4, even the new Fuji 56/1.2 APS lens etc.

Agreed on comparison reviews with Zeiss and any other super lenses out there. What I read about the Otus made a very good case that the DSLR, especially the new breed of extreme resolution sensors, has supplanted medium format, and thus require a new standard of optical design. From that standpoint, and considering the resolution of Nikon's flagship DSLR, lenses of this caliber must be designed and built to an equal standard surpassing anything associated with 35mm film cameras, and thus have to be priced accordingly. This lens, and more like it, are inevitable, and important to secure Nikon's reputation as a pinnacle brand.

Well, it's not cheap, but it's a real bargain compared to the new $4000 Zeiss "Otus" 55mm f1.4. I'd love to see a comparative review that puts these two head-to-head. (And for fun, perhaps a few other new lenses in the same approximate focal length. Perhaps the just-announced 55mm Zeiss f1.8 for the full-frame Sony E-mount, and maybe the updated Leica Noctilux 50.)